A Deeply Fractured US

[rmc_wannabe]

Trump and people like them succeed in business ( well... not in his case...but hear me out) by their use of leverage and position.

He may not have committed espionage or treason, but the fact he held on to these documents leads me to believe he was keeping things in a "In case of fire break glass" scenario.

I wouldn't put it past him.

 

[Kirkhill]

I would say yes.

In my opinion that is for the next election to decide.

 

[Kirkhill]

Trump and people like them succeed in business ( well... not in his case...but hear me out) by their use of leverage and position.

As do presidents and prime ministers.

 

[MilEME09]

As do presidents and prime ministers.

I'd say its more likely Trump had these documents because he may of thought they could give him a leg up in business, not espionage

 

[Kirkhill]

I'd say its more likely Trump had these documents because he may of thought they could give him a leg up in business, not espionage

I have a garage full of documents that I have collected over a lifetime. I keep them as souvenirs and seldom actually look at them. Just like the shelves of books I have.

The only thing that keeps me from throwing them all out, beyond a sense of attachment, is the past history of discovering the one thing I needed was the last book I discarded during my last clean out.

Is that Trump's motivation? I have no way of knowing. He does things differently than me. And for a failed businessman he seems to have accrued a whole lot of assets and followers.

 

[Remius]

In my opinion that is for the next election to decide.

Committing treason is not reliant on an election decision. Or even the next election for that matter. The question was if a president can commit treason.

As per the constitution it’s pretty well defined on what constitutes treason. So can a president commit treason? Sure. Can he be charged with treason is likely up for debate.

Article 3 Section 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

 

[suffolkowner]

Unless evidence comes out to suggest that, I'd agree. Such a crime not only would shake the country to its core but if any foreign nation is involved in this, it will likely destroy the US relationship with said nation.

I'm not sure it would. What are people going to do? Not vote Republican?

 

[MilEME09]

I'm not sure it would. What are people going to do? Not vote Republican?

It would be pretty unprecedented if a former president was charged with treason. That's a rabbit hole in won't go down though unless we have to.

 

[Kirkhill]

Committing treason is not reliant on an election decision. Or even the next election for that matter. The question was if a president can commit treason.

As per the constitution it’s pretty well defined on what constitutes treason. So can a president commit treason? Sure. Can he be charged with treason is likely up for debate.

Article 3 Section 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

I thought that was what Impeachment was for?

The Senate is the President's Jury of Peers. They get to decide if the actions of the President rise to the level of Treason.

 

[suffolkowner]

So there can't actually be any treason right now can there as the US is not at war?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Wouldn't worry too much yet about something that is pure speculation fanned by people who know the trigger words "nucular sekrets!". Waste of indignation.

 

[Remius]

Wouldn't worry too much yet about something that is pure speculation fanned by people who know the trigger words "nucular sekrets!". Waste of indignation.

Same as “planted evidence”, “politically motivated”, “satanic cult information” etc etc. Both sides are fairly adept at fanning speculation.

 

[Kirkhill]

There will be sides. One side will "win". One side will "lose".

The real question is, in my opinion, is there anything that can't be borne for four years? Is there anything that can't be remedied by a change of government and the next election.

Back to a notion about age.

For a 16 year old, if given the right to vote, 4 years is 25% of their life. 12 years old was an eternity ago.

For a 64 year old, 4 years is 6% of their life. 60 years old was yesterday.

For an 80 year old, 4 years is 5% of their life. 76 years old was also yesterday. But 84 may never come.

The older you get the more stuff you survive, and the more you discover how little actually changes.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

All of this will be another boring chapter in a history textbook (or digital version thereof) that some student does not want to read or care about.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Some pretty wild speculation happening. Smelling lots of chronic TDS up in here. He's a man. Not some anti superhero or Bond villain.

 

[KevinB]

Where are you seeing that?

It had popped up in morning news email brief from NYT. I tried to link it earlier - but it sends me to apple news on my phone or iMac - not an actual website.

I tried looking for other articles - but it looks like it was redacted - someone spoke without authorization?

 

[brihard]

It had popped up in morning news email brief from NYT. I tried to link it earlier - but it sends me to apple news on my phone or iMac - not an actual website.

I tried looking for other articles - but it looks like it was redacted - someone spoke without authorization?

Fair enough. Plop it in the ‘wait and see’ pile I guess.

 

[FJAG]

So there can't actually be any treason right now can there as the US is not at war?

A state of war is not essential. Treason consists of owing allegiance to the country and betraying that allegiance by levying war against the country or aiding and abetting its enemies.

Levying war is not the same as declaring war. Forcible opposition to the execution of a public law is enough - that can include an assembly of people who are ready and intend to overthrow the duly elected government.

See here for e.g.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

A state of war is not essential. Treason consists of owing allegiance to the country and betraying that allegiance by levying war against the country or aiding and abetting its enemies.

So, like biden and Red China.

 

[brihard]

A state of war is not essential. Treason consists of owing allegiance to the country and betraying that allegiance by levying war against the country or aiding and abetting its enemies.

Levying war is not the same as declaring war. Forcible opposition to the execution of a public law is enough - that can include an assembly of people who are ready and intend to overthrow the duly elected government.

See here for e.g.

I believe it would require specific intent to aid an enemy, no? The way I read article 3 and some of the commentary on it, working contrary to the interests of your country merely out of idiocy or for a self-serving purpose would not suffice. I think levying war against or aiding an enemy of the U.S. is an essential element.